Trains Get the Short End of the Subsidy Stick.

It would be nice if the anti-passenger-rail people in Congress and in state governments would show a little consistency. For example, if their philosophy of governance dictates that Amtrak should get no government subsidies, then shouldn’t that concept also apply to other transportation modes? To highways or bike lanes, for example? Or to the airlines?

What, you say incredulously, you mean the airlines are subsidized? Indeed they are. The federal government pays for the air traffic control system. States and counties and cities pay to build and maintain the airports. And there are direct subsidies for air passengers all over the west and Midwest. Here’s just one example.

In Iowa, the federal government pays out almost $11 million every year to subsidize operations at six small airports. The average number of passengers at each of those airports per day? Forty-two. That computes to a subsidy of about $120 for every passenger for every flight. As that legendary baseball icon Casey Stengel would say, “You could look it up!”

Meanwhile, Iowa’s Republican governor, Terry Branstad, is against extending Amtrak service from the Quad Cities to Iowa City and from there to Des Moines. His main objection? The new rail service would require a subsidy. How much of a subsidy? According to Branstad’s own Department of Transportation, about $2 per passenger.

At the same time, Iowa’s DOT is planning to expand the interstate highway system in the state at a cost of about a billion dollars. That’s an average cost of $6 million per mile.

And so we continue to construct highways, subsidizing cars and trucks, and we expand airports and subsidize passengers who choose to fly. But we still oppose very modest subsidies for the best transportation bargain of all, passenger rail.

Here’s the essential truth: Every American has the right to some form of public transportation.

That means the family car should not be your only option if you want to travel 300 miles to see your new grandson … or if you have to go to Kansas City to see a specialist for a medical condition … or back home from college between semesters … or, yes, even if all you want is to see another part of the country for a few days. It’s the responsibility of government at all levels to see that as many Americans as possible can choose to travel on public transportation.

There are 2 Comments.

Ironically, under Anthony Haswell, NARP was at the forefront of educating the media and Congress re the unleveled playing field of transportation subsidies. But that voice of integrity was lost when NARP agreed, post Haswell, to cease being the consumer advocate from the outside, and moved inside Amtrak’s tent to accept annual payments.

Where has the voice of NARP been these years to manifest its integrity by educating the illiterate media and lobbyist controlled Congress to genuinely question what inhibits Amtrak’s growth:
1) Why are the principles of GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) not followed?
a) How can the Northeast Corridor (NEC) be declared “profitable” before including capitalization of infrastructure costs for the Amtrak-owned route?
b) As the actual interpretation of “profit” is defined by passengers per mile, why are the long distance routes and state corridors declared to Congress as “losses,” when so much of the NEC’s overhead costs are dumped into these sectors to keep the NEC “profitable?” Where is the transparency in cost allocations to state corridors that would facilitate expanding frequencies as incremental costs, instead of hitting such proposals with the full cost, as if an entirely new train/route?
c) Why is there no transparency to Amtrak subsidizing the cost of the numerous Northeast commuter lines using the NEC, which has been determined to be between $300M-$500M per year?
2) Why tolerate the de-capitation of food/beverage services?
a) Diners staffed by questionably trained, and certainly unmotivated, over paid staff not working for tips– not interested in up-selling to boost revenues.
b) On arrival day of long distance trains, diner operates for benefit of crew to have 4-5 hours to count and box inventory; “express meal” service comes within 1 hour of breakfast.
c) Lounge carries insufficient liquor inventory pars; LSA untrained as bartender; more of a 7-11concept.
3) Where is the business model to identify today’s markets and schedules to serve those markets?
4) Why are pathetically elongated scheduled long distance trains tolerated, preventing asset utilization in favor of saving on broken connections, as per example:
a) EB “Lake Shore Limited”
b) EB “Capitol Limited”
c) SB “City of New Orleans”

Now that the Amtrak unions are pushing Congress to fund Amtrak, perhaps they will fill the vacuum as consumer advocates for the rail passengers of today–and tomorrow?

OK, several things:
First, as far as I know, you have not attended any of our meetings over the last several years. If you had, you would know that there is a new board and a new president/CEO and there has been for some time a new dedication to being THE advocate for the rail passenger in the U.S., be that on Amtrak or on commuter rail or on transit.
Second, you are correct that we have rarely indulged in public criticism of Amtrak. God knows, they get enough of that from many sources, most of whom are un-informed or ill-informed or, in the case of people like John Mica, self-serving and malicious. Amtrak gets plenty of suggestions and comments and criticism from NARP, but they are delivered one-on-one and are, in my view, far more productive as a result.
Third, NARP has been in the forefront of the effort to restore acceptable on-time performance to Amtrak’s long-distance trains, including publicly asking the Secretary of Transportation to intervene on behalf of our constituents, the passengers, and to the filing of an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Fourth, most of the problems you mention are not widespread, as you imply, and are, in my view, more the result in the relentless pressure on Amtrak by Congress to reduce costs than by poor management by Amtrak.
Finally, while I welcome your comments, I would respectfully ask that you keep them brief. I have plenty to do and, rather than take the time to edit them for length, I would have to resort to simply not publishing them at all. I do hope you understand.